Dwayne's Worldhttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name
enWriting Between the Lineshttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2014/02/23/writing-between-the-lines
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UAfJulXFYlc?feature=player_detailpage" height="360" width="640" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe><p>
This morning, while reading my Facebook newsfeed, I saw a post about the upcoming movie <a title="Noah, starring Russell Crowe Jennifer Connelly Ray Winstone Emma Watson and Anthony Hopkins" href="http://www.noahmovie.com" target="_blank">Noah</a>. Specifically, a concern that the movie wasn't Biblical enough. As I read through <a title="Do Christians care if ‘Noah’ movie jibes with the Bible? Survey says … yep" href="http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/02/21/do-christians-care-if-noah-movie-jibes-with-bible-survey-says-yep/" target="_blank">the article</a>, I saw that the concerns related to a perception that the film makers had "an agenda for another worldview or belief system" which differed from theirs. To quote from the article:</p>
<blockquote><p>Since early drafts of the script were leaked a couple of years ago, “Noah” has been plagued by suggestions that it portrayed the famous flood as a punishment for man’s disrespect for the [sic] nature, as opposed to sins against God</p></blockquote>
<p>I went back and reread the Noah story. Here's what I found. Genesis 6:11-13 (NRSV) reads:</p>
<blockquote><p><sup>11</sup>Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. <sup>12</sup>And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. <sup>13</sup>And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make and end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth.</p></blockquote>
<p>I see nothing there specifically about disrespect for nature. But I <strong>also</strong> don't see any specific mention of sin against God. The sins specifically mentioned are corruption and violence. Sins against people, not God. So why is one perspective more "biblical" than another?</p>
<p>Since September, <a title="Allentown Presbyterian Church, Allentown, NJ" href="http://www.allentownpresbyterian.org/" target="_blank">my church</a> has been engaged in reading through "<a title="The Story, NIV: The Bible as One Continuing Story of God and His People" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031095097X/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=031095097X&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=thecollienet" target="_blank">The Story</a>"<img style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" alt="" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=thecollienet&amp;l=as2&amp;o=1&amp;a=031095097X" width="1" height="1" border="0" /> together. This is sort of a "Reader's Digest" version of the NIV translation of the Bible. Each week, the sermon is taken from that week's chapter, we have two different adult education sessions on the chapter, children and youth Sunday School classes, and we have <a title="The Story | Discussion of the Bible in 31 Chapters" href="http://apcthestory.wordpress.com" target="_blank">an online blog</a> about it. The two adult education sessions we hold are <strong>very</strong> different from one another. The one held on Sunday morning is a fairly traditional, lecture type class, and very didactic in nature. The Monday evening class is much smaller, and more focused on discussion and is relational in nature. I generally attend the Sunday morning class, and assist in the leadership of the Monday evening class. While I benefit more from the discussion approach, I appreciate that many people do better with the lecture style. But, quite apart from the style of presentation, I've had some difficulties with the Sunday morning classes. Just like the criticism of the Noah movie, material is often presented as biblical fact, when it is actually an interpretation of the text. For example, today we were discussing the book of Esther. In that story, Haman is clearly the villain. So the instructor read out a passage, and asked us to identify truths, half truths, and outright lies. Esther 3:8 reads</p>
<blockquote><p>Then Haman said to the king, "There is a certain people scattered and separated among the peoples in all the provincesof your kingdom; their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king's laws, so that it is not appropriate for the king to tolerate them.</p></blockquote>
<p>The leader's comment was that the bit about "they do not keep the king's laws" was a lie. But I feel that this was <strong>her</strong>, reading into the text to try to make Haman look even worse than he was. The whole reason that Haman was out to get the Jews in the first place was because Mordecai, a Jew, refused to bow down to him, as the king had decreed. A clear violation of "the king's laws."</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. The leader does a good job with the class. Her love of God and the scriptures is obvious, as is her passion for passing that love on to others. I just get upset when that passion leads to blanket statements of interpretation presented as unassailable fact. And, in the big scheme of things, this one instance is really very minor. Who cares if Haman lied or not about this one item? I only mentioned this one instance because it was recent in my mind, and I think it's indicative of a common problem of reading in too much, based on our own experiences.</p>
<p>Of course, we all bring our own biases and perspectives with us with everything we read, including the Bible. I'm certainly as guilty of that as the next person. All I'm trying to say here is that I think we need to try to be aware of those biases when we attempt to read, interpret, and apply scripture to our lives.</p>
<p>One of the joys of this time of reading the Bible together as a group in church has been the process of digging past what we <strong>think</strong> the text says, and getting down into what's actually there. So many of us never got past the lessons we learned in Sunday School as a child. Actually reading the Bible, in community, can help make us more mature and educated in our faith. So we're not swayed by what others tell us we should believe. We need to read between the lines of scripture. We just need to make sure we're not reading what some later person <strong>wrote</strong> between those lines.</p>
<p>Getting back to Noah -- I don't know how biblical the movie is. I haven't seen it<strong>.</strong> I'm not sure that I will. But I <strong>do</strong> know that I won't allow that decision to be based on how closely the movie plot follows somebody else's view of what the Bible says.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/bible-study" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">bible study</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/personal" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">personal</a></div></div></div>Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:15:59 +0000dbcollies469 at http://dwayne.thebaileys.namehttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2014/02/23/writing-between-the-lines#commentsAs for me and my house ...http://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2013/10/27/as-for-me-and-my-house
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>In worship today at <a title="Allentown Presbyterian Church" href="http://www.allentownpresbyterian.org" target="_new">APC</a>, Pastor Stephen preached on Joshua 24:1-15 (NIV), which comes at the end of <a href="http://apcthestory.wordpress.com/category/chapters/chapter-7/" target="_new">this week's reading</a> in "The Story." Basically, Joshua gives a brief retelling of the Israelite's history, from Abraham's selection as the father of God's people, through Egypt, the wilderness, and finally into the promised land, all the while telling of what God has done for the people. Included in that was a retelling of how the former residents of the promised land had been driven out. by God.</p>
<p>The sermon focused on the idea that assimilation was one of the greatest challenges facing the Israelites as they moved into the promised land. There was a real danger that they would begin to fall away from God, worshipping along with the Canaanites, Jebusites, and all the rest. That's why those people had to be eliminated. He then moved on to talk about our current culture, and how we find ourselves in a similar situation -- surrounded by people who don't hold the values that we aspire to. I was fine with that as far as it went, but I had a real problem with what came next. He started talking about things like Sunday mornings, which used to be devoted to church attendance, being instead taken up by sports and other activities. He brought up education, which he said was originally an action by the Protestant reformers so that the common folk would be able to read and understand the Bible, but now God was banished from school. There were several other examples as well.</p>
<p>All of those things he discussed are certainly true, and I agree that many of them are indicative of a culture entirely focused on the self, with no regard for the other, but I still had to almost physically restrain myself from standing up to argue with him during worship! I wanted to tell him that he was missing the point. He seemed to focus on the idea that the problem was with "those people" who weren't living according to Christian values. Of course, I agree that Christian values (at least as I understand them) are a good thing, and I'd like to see more people live by them. But I think that Stephen missed an important nuance in the text. Verses 14-15 read</p>
<blockquote><p>“Now fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your ancestors worshiped beyond the Euphrates River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”</p></blockquote>
<p>It's not about controlling what others do, or say, or believe. Joshua understands that he is in control of only himself.</p>
<p>My takeaway from this is that we are responsible to act with integrity, honoring what we believe in, and we are to act as a public example of what we believe to be the best way to live, but we are <strong>not</strong> here to force our beliefs and values on others.</p>
<p>To be completely fair to Stephen, the end of the sermon did focus more on the idea of living our our own beliefs, and not so much on the idea of imposing those beliefs. He also brought up other social justice type issues, not just God in schools and Sunday morning scheduling. I have a great deal of respect for Stephen. He is a man of great personal integrity and honesty. I may have had some issues with this particular sermon, but it certainly got me thinking and involved, as they almost always do.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/personal" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">personal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/theology" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Theology</a></div></div></div>Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:35:34 +0000dbcollies468 at http://dwayne.thebaileys.namehttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2013/10/27/as-for-me-and-my-house#commentsThe Winning Side?http://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2012/04/22/the-winning-side
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>This morning, my pastor, Stephen Heinzel-Nelson, preached on Revelation 21:1-5. He started out by asking, "If you knew, with absolute certainty, who was going to win the World Series next year, would it change your behavior?" The point he was making was that, through the writings in the book of Revelation, we know that God wins. And, because God wins, God's people win. So we should look to that "end state" and live our lives accordingly.</p>
<p>Before I go any further, let me say that I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Heinzel-Nelson. Even though I think we probably disagree on some points of theology, I think he takes his positions thoughtfully and prayerfully, and with respect for others. I hope, in fact, that this post isn't taken as a criticism of Dr. Heinzel-Nelson at all. The fact that his sermon is good enough to get me thinking, and trying to explore it further, is instead a praise of him and what he's able to do to help me in my own spiritual growth. Now, of course, having said that ...</p>
<p>While I agree fully with the intention of what he's saying, I have a problem with how it's being said. To use his example ... yes, I think behavior would change if people knew the outcome of next year's World Series, but not in the way I think he's implying. A large part of the joy of being a fan of a game is encouraging your team, cheering when they prevail, and suffering with them when they don't. If you knew ahead of time that your team would win (or lose) then I think that there would be a great deal <strong>less</strong> interest and enthusiasm on the part of the fans. The only people I think would would show <strong>more</strong> enthusiasm would be those who want to profit from the outcome - gamblers and bookmakers, rather than those who care about the team itself.</p>
<p>I think a better way to look at this would be that the "end state" discussed in in Revelation is, rather than an immutable fact, an end goal. We can believe that there <strong>will</strong> be a "New Heaven and New Earth" but, rather than it being a fixed point in time, like the World Series or the Super Bowl, it is instead a goal that will be reached <strong>through</strong> God's people working toward it. Rather that "God wins, so God's people win," I would say something like "God wins <strong>through</strong> God's people winning."</p>
<p>I'm sure that some would say this takes away from the supreme sovereignty of God. I disagree. God is still in control. But God wants US to be a partner in that victory, not someone who sits on the sidelines. And so we try, and fail, and try, and fail, all the while moving closer to that end goal.</p>
<p>Any thoughts? Am I way out in left field here? Oh, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that I was slightly "miffed" at Stephen this morning, because, prior to the start of the service, he spent a little time on "Worship Etiquette" which included turning off all electronic devices. I happen to use my iPad as a part of the service, not to distract from it, so I felt a little "put out" by that. ;)</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/personal" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">personal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/theology" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Theology</a></div></div></div>Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:03:24 +0000dbcollies467 at http://dwayne.thebaileys.namehttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2012/04/22/the-winning-side#commentsThe Andromeda Strainhttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2012/03/04/the-andromeda-strain
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>TiVo recorded <a href="http://www.imdb.com/rg/em_share/rt_ipad/title/tt0424600">The Andromeda Strain</a> (2008 version) as a movie it thought I might like. I read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Andromeda-Strain-Michael-Crichton/dp/006170315X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1330902327&amp;sr=8-2">the book</a> as a teen and really enjoyed it. So I thought I'd give it a chance. Boy, was TiVo wrong on this one!</p>
<p>Admittedly, it's been a while since I read the book, but, as I recall, the basic idea was that some dumb decisions, as well as some failures in technology, resulted in a tragedy. People died from an extra terrestrial germ that was brought back to Earth by a satellite.</p>
<p>This new movie has the bug on the satellite, but that's about where the similarity ends. I understand that changes have to be made to move from a book to a movie, but this is ridiculous. In this version, the military is actively evil. They kill people to hide their secrets. The bug apparently doesn't come from the far reaches of space, but a wormhole from the future. And it's intelligent. They used a few items from the book, but this is <strong>NOT</strong> the Andromeda Strain.</p>
<p>Add on top of that some bad CGI birds with shades of Alfred Hitchcock, and you've got the makings of one bad movie. I actually laughed out loud at times, it was so bad.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/movie-review" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">movie review</a></div></div></div>Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:53:20 +0000dbcollies466 at http://dwayne.thebaileys.namehttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2012/03/04/the-andromeda-strain#commentsInsurrection Chapter One: I'm a Christian! I'm a Christian!http://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2012/03/04/insurrection-chapter-one-im-a-christian-im-a-christian
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Rollins starts off the chapter talking about desire -- desire for things, desire for people. He makes a fundamental distinction between desire for things, including experiences such as vacations and promotions, and desire for those whom we love. "Beloved" in his terminology. It's not so much a matter of degree (wanting the beloved more than those other things), but rather the desire for the beloved allows all of those other desires to exist. I can see that, though he then makes what to me seems a rather sudden leap -- that it's the desire of our beloved for us that we really desire. While I think there's probably a lot of truth in this, I found his leap a little jarring as I was reading it.</p>
<p>Be that as it may, he uses that to explain our desire for a relationship with a God who loves us eternally and unconditionally, quoting Voltaire:</p>
<blockquote><p>If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.</p></blockquote>
<p>The bulk of this section of the book seems to be oriented toward breaking down belief. He speaks of God as "deus ex machina," meaning something inserted into life to arbitrarily resolve problems, rather than having anything to do with reality. The problem here, from Rollins point of view, is that of the meaning of life, or rather its lack thereof.</p>
<p>Having said all of that, Robbins finishes the chapter with a way forward. He rejects "pat answers" to questions, but encourages movement <strong>into</strong> doubt and ambiguity. Anyone who has read some of Rollins' other works will recognize this as a theme of his. That doubt and ambiguity is very uncomfortable, but, he believe, essential. I tend to agree.</p>
<p><a href="/2012/02/12/insurrection-by-peter-rollins/">Back to table of contents</a></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/insurrection" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Insurrection</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/personal" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">personal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/peter-rollins" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Peter Rollins</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/theology" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Theology</a></div></div></div>Sun, 04 Mar 2012 19:46:06 +0000dbcollies465 at http://dwayne.thebaileys.namehttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2012/03/04/insurrection-chapter-one-im-a-christian-im-a-christian#commentsInsurrection: Introductionhttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2012/02/13/insurrection-introduction
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>In the introduction to "Insurrection" Rollins states his premise that the church has undergone several radical transformations over its history. The first of these was over the question of the circumcision of new believers found in the book of Acts. He mentions others in passing, such as the protestant reformation, but he focuses on that first debate. His claim is that each of these milestone events is an example of taking the old beliefs of what is required to worship God, and burn away the chaff to get to the true heart of worship and believe.</p>
<p>Given that there have been several such events throughout history, the implication of course is that we're coming closer and closer to "true" belief. Rollins believes that we are in another such transition time now, and that the thing that is being "burned away" is religion itself. He quotes Bonhoeffer referring to something called "religionless Christianity" as at the core of the transition. "Insurrection" is Rollins attempt</p>
<blockquote><p>... to outline what this radical expression of a faith beyond religion might look like and how it has the power to give birth to a radically new form of Church</p></blockquote>
<p>My hope with these series of posts is that I'll examine his position, as well as my own beliefs, hopefully coming out with a solid, mature understanding of my own faith, as well as where the church is heading.</p>
<p><a title="Insurrection" href="/2012/02/12/insurrection-by-peter-rollins/">back to table of contents</a></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/insurrection" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Insurrection</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/personal" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">personal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/peter-rollins" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Peter Rollins</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/theology" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Theology</a></div></div></div>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:31:41 +0000dbcollies464 at http://dwayne.thebaileys.namehttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2012/02/13/insurrection-introduction#commentsInsurrection by Peter Rollinshttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2012/02/12/insurrection-by-peter-rollins
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><iframe style="width: 120px; height: 240px;" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=thecollienet&amp;o=1&amp;p=8&amp;l=as1&amp;asins=B00570C0M4&amp;ref=qf_sp_asin_til&amp;fc1=000000&amp;IS2=1&amp;lt1=_blank&amp;m=amazon&amp;lc1=0000FF&amp;bc1=000000&amp;bg1=FFFFFF&amp;f=ifr" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" width="320" height="240"></iframe><p>
The theologian Peter Rollins seems to be one who is speaking to me recently. Starting with "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00596XY5I/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thecollienet&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=B00596XY5I">How (Not) to Speak of God"</a> I've found myself drawn to his iconoclastic approach. His newest book is "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00570C0M4/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thecollienet&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=B00570C0M4">Insurrection</a>." I've just completed reading it. I now want to go back through it, chapter by chapter, and write my thoughts. I'm doing this not so much for any one else to read as much as I am as something of a spiritual discipline for myself. My goal is do do one chapter every other day or so. I'd like to say a chapter a day, but I'm afraid that if I set too ambitious a schedule, then I'll fall away and not do it at all.</p>
<p>This post will act as a table of contents to the posts on each chapter. I'll update the links below as posts are written.</p>
<p><a title="Insurrection: Introduction" href="/2012/02/13/insurrection-introduction/">Introduction: There Is a Fire in the Building; Please Step Inside</a></p>
<p>Part One: Crucifixion<br /><a title="Insurrection Chapter One" href="/2012/02/12/insurrection-by-peter-rollins/">Chapter One: I'm a Christian! I'm a Christian!</a><br />
Chapter Two: To Believe Is Human; To Doubt, Divine<br />
Chapter Three: "I'm Not Religious" And Other Religious Sayings<br />
Chapter Four: I Don't Have To Believe; My Pastor Does That For Me</p>
<p>Part Two: Resurrection<br />
Chapter Five: Story Crime<br />
Chapter Six: We Are Destiny<br />
Chapter Seven: I Believe In the Insurrection<br />
Chapter Eight: Neither Christian Nor Non-Christian</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/insurrection" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Insurrection</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/personal" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">personal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/peter-rollins" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Peter Rollins</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/theology" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Theology</a></div></div></div>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:17:49 +0000dbcollies463 at http://dwayne.thebaileys.namehttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2012/02/12/insurrection-by-peter-rollins#commentsGingrich more normal than Jesus?http://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2012/01/25/gingrich-more-normal-than-jesus
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>I found this short video interesting. It's Newt Gingrich talking about forgiveness for his past infidelities, which is certainly a fine topic for discussion. However, at the very end, he makes the claim that his public failings actually make him "more normal" than some unnamed person who "wanders around, seeming perfect." I'm sure he's referring to Mitt Romney, of course. But the first thought that jumped out at me when I heard this was "did he just compare himself to Jesus???"</p>
<p>oh, and I also liked the "been there/done that" comment from evangelicals on the infidelity thing. I know he meant forgiveness, but that's not what it sounded like. ;)</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/personal" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">personal</a></div></div></div>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:39:28 +0000dbcollies462 at http://dwayne.thebaileys.namehttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2012/01/25/gingrich-more-normal-than-jesus#commentsThe passing of one of my favorite authorshttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2011/11/23/the-passing-of-one-of-my-favorite-authors
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><a href="http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45409015/ns/today-books/t/science-fiction-author-anne-mccaffrey-dies/#.Tsz2r4Q9dnp"></a>
<p>One of my favorite authors, <a title="Anne McCaffrey - Wikipedia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_McCaffrey" target="_blank">Anne McCaffrey</a>,<a href="http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45409015/ns/today-books/t/science-fiction-author-anne-mccaffrey-dies/#.Tsz2r4Q9dnp">died today</a>. I've been a fan ever since high school, when the girl who sat behind me in study hall, Amy Gheres, introduced me to her "Dragonrider" series. (Thanks, Amy!) There were only two book in the series then, and I remember waiting with anticipation as new books came out. (there are 14 in the series now). I also greatly enjoyed the "<a title="Crystal Singer - Wikipedia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Singer" target="_blank">Crystal Singer</a>" trilogy.</p>
<p>McCaffrey's books tend to feature strong female characters, which was quite a break from the rest of the authors of the genre at the time. While there are certainly strong male characters, in general, it's the women who are the primary focus of many of the books.</p>
<p>I may have to go back an re-read some of those books now. Anne McCaffrey, along with Frank Herbert and J.R.R. Tolkien, were the primary staples of my library as a young adult.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/personal" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">personal</a></div></div></div>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:17:48 +0000dbcollies461 at http://dwayne.thebaileys.namehttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2011/11/23/the-passing-of-one-of-my-favorite-authors#commentsPlugin documentationhttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2011/09/11/plugin-documentation
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>I was really surprised when I was contacted recently by somebody who might want to use my theater productions plugin. I'm not 100% certain it's going to do what he wants, but he's willing to try. But that means that I need to actually <strong>document</strong> the silly thing. So I've spent this weekend writing up a first draft of a page on how to install and use my plugin.</p>
<p>Go ahead and <a href="/productions-plugin-documentation/">give it a read</a> if you'd like. If that doesn't scare you away from using it, nothing will.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/categories/personal" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">personal</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/categories/productions" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Productions</a></div></div></div>Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:23:59 +0000dbcollies460 at http://dwayne.thebaileys.namehttp://dwayne.thebaileys.name/2011/09/11/plugin-documentation#comments